Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of different abutments and crowns on the color of implant-supported restorations.
METHODS: Zirconia and lithium disilicate (e.max) disks with A2 shade were fabricated to represent two crowns. The implant abutments were untreated titanium, opaqued titanium, anodized titanium, A2 shade zirconia and white zirconia. 4.0 mm-thickness zirconia and e.max specimens were used as references respectively. The crowns were placed on tested abutments with a drop of clear glycerin between them and the color was measured using a digital spectrophotometer. CIELab values were recorded to evaluate color differences (ΔE) between tested specimens and the references.
RESULTS: Titanium abutments presented higher color differences than zirconia. The ΔE values with untreated titanium were higher than those with opaqued titanium. No differences were found between untreated titanium and anodized titanium for zirconia crowns. The ΔE values of zirconia crowns showed no significant differences between shade A2 zirconia and white zirconia abutments; e.max crowns showed a significant difference. The zirconia crown ΔE values were lower than those of e.max for all titanium and A2 zirconia abutments. Lithium disilicate crowns and zirconia abutments may be more suitable for implant-supported restorations. Opaqued titanium abutment may improve color in esthetic regions when a ceramic abutment cannot be used.
CONCLUSIONS: Lithium disilicate crowns and zirconia abutments may be an effective method to achieve excellent color matching in esthetic regions with implant-supported restorations.
METHODS: Zirconia and lithium disilicate (e.max) disks with A2 shade were fabricated to represent two crowns. The implant abutments were untreated titanium, opaqued titanium, anodized titanium, A2 shade zirconia and white zirconia. 4.0 mm-thickness zirconia and e.max specimens were used as references respectively. The crowns were placed on tested abutments with a drop of clear glycerin between them and the color was measured using a digital spectrophotometer. CIELab values were recorded to evaluate color differences (ΔE) between tested specimens and the references.
RESULTS: Titanium abutments presented higher color differences than zirconia. The ΔE values with untreated titanium were higher than those with opaqued titanium. No differences were found between untreated titanium and anodized titanium for zirconia crowns. The ΔE values of zirconia crowns showed no significant differences between shade A2 zirconia and white zirconia abutments; e.max crowns showed a significant difference. The zirconia crown ΔE values were lower than those of e.max for all titanium and A2 zirconia abutments. Lithium disilicate crowns and zirconia abutments may be more suitable for implant-supported restorations. Opaqued titanium abutment may improve color in esthetic regions when a ceramic abutment cannot be used.
CONCLUSIONS: Lithium disilicate crowns and zirconia abutments may be an effective method to achieve excellent color matching in esthetic regions with implant-supported restorations.
摘要：
目的：研究不同基台和牙冠对种植体支撑修复体颜色的影响。
方法：氧化锆和二硅酸锂（例如max）制造具有A2阴影的圆盘以代表两个冠。植入物基台是未经处理的钛，不透明的钛，阳极氧化钛，A2阴影氧化锆和白色氧化锆。4.0mm厚的氧化锆和e.max样品分别用作参考。将牙冠放置在测试的基台上，其间有一滴透明的甘油，并使用数字分光光度计测量颜色。记录CIELab值以评估测试样本与参考之间的色差(ΔE)。
结果：钛基台的色差高于氧化锆。未处理钛的ΔE值高于不透明钛的ΔE值。对于氧化锆冠，未处理的钛和阳极氧化的钛之间没有差异。氧化锆冠的ΔE值在阴影A2氧化锆和白色氧化锆基台之间没有显着差异；e.max冠显示出显着差异。对于所有钛和A2氧化锆基台，氧化锆冠ΔE值均低于e.max。二硅酸锂冠部和氧化锆基台可能更适合用于植入物支撑的修复体。当不能使用陶瓷基台时，不透明的钛基台可以改善美学区域的颜色。
结论：二硅酸锂牙冠和氧化锆基台可能是在美学区域与植入物支撑的修复体实现优异颜色匹配的有效方法。
方法：氧化锆和二硅酸锂（例如max）制造具有A2阴影的圆盘以代表两个冠。植入物基台是未经处理的钛，不透明的钛，阳极氧化钛，A2阴影氧化锆和白色氧化锆。4.0mm厚的氧化锆和e.max样品分别用作参考。将牙冠放置在测试的基台上，其间有一滴透明的甘油，并使用数字分光光度计测量颜色。记录CIELab值以评估测试样本与参考之间的色差(ΔE)。
结果：钛基台的色差高于氧化锆。未处理钛的ΔE值高于不透明钛的ΔE值。对于氧化锆冠，未处理的钛和阳极氧化的钛之间没有差异。氧化锆冠的ΔE值在阴影A2氧化锆和白色氧化锆基台之间没有显着差异；e.max冠显示出显着差异。对于所有钛和A2氧化锆基台，氧化锆冠ΔE值均低于e.max。二硅酸锂冠部和氧化锆基台可能更适合用于植入物支撑的修复体。当不能使用陶瓷基台时，不透明的钛基台可以改善美学区域的颜色。
结论：二硅酸锂牙冠和氧化锆基台可能是在美学区域与植入物支撑的修复体实现优异颜色匹配的有效方法。
